Re: Ghost vs XCOPY

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Allan Ballard (aballard_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sat Feb 03 2001 - 14:33:53 EST

Just to note the not-so-obvious, the xcopy32 command
must be run from within a DOS window, not from "real"
DOS.
-----Original Message-----
From: James H. E. Maugham <CaptJHEM_at_waterw.com>
To: Matt Winston <mattwinston_at_ameritech.net>; Thinkpad Users Group
<thinkpad_at_cs.utk.edu>; Dr. Jeffrey Race <jrace_at_attglobal.net>
Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: Ghost vs XCOPY

>With thanks to Mark Bell (we're not worthy!!!):
>
>The command to clone a drive within Windows 9x is:
>
>xcopy32 c:\*.* d:\*.* /c/h/e/r/y
>
>Regards,
>
>James
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Winston [mailto:mattwinston_at_ameritech.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:33 PM
>> To: Thinkpad Users Group; Dr. Jeffrey Race
>> Subject: Re: Ghost vs XCOPY
>>
>>
>> Ghost will duplicate the entire drive image (directories and files) to
>> another partition or hdd. Like a Xerox copy.
>> Since I can't remember all the suffix's for xcopy, Ghost is a great no
>> brainer. Fast and simple.
>> Matt Winston
>>
>>
>>
>> Recent discussion mentioned Ghost for re-creating directories
>> on a second hard drive in a Thinkpad. What are the differences
>> and advantages of Ghost over XCOPY, and what are the limitations
>> of XCOPY? I and to copy logical drive structures in an OS/2
>> system.
>>
>> Jeffrey Race
>>
>>
>>

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:56:49 EST